I'm not in favor of limiting the discourse. I'm in favor of placing significant restrictions for who gets to be invited to this important debate. If you make the cut, you can talk about anything you think is important.

When you restrict the participants you restrict the discourse. You know that.
It seems like we further limit the chance of ever having a Potus that is not R or D by restricting the debate in this way.

You aren't getting a voice because of the product that your candidate(s) are selling. They are fringe right now and the vast majority of the country don't agree with most of what they are pitching.

I think these parties are kept fringe ring by the media and the two parties in power. Of course they don't want these parties to grow larger.

I hear people all the time talk about how fed up with Washington they are, how they don't like either candidate but will vote one way or another because candidate X is the lesser of two evils......or stuff like "I'd like to vote for him, but he's not electable"

The process is broke.

__________________
Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning:

Matt once made a very nice play in Seattle where he spun away from a pass rusher and hit Bowe off his back foot for a first down.

I think these parties are kept fringe ring by the media and the two parties in power. Of course they don't want these parties to grow larger.

I hear people all the time talk about how fed up with Washington they are, how they don't like either candidate but will vote one way or another because candidate X is the lesser of two evils......or stuff like "I'd like to vote for him, but he's not electable"

The process is broke.

No, they are just fringe. Ron Paul was at every GOP debate and basically showed just how fringe he is. Sorry. If people agreed with the message and the policies, Ron Paul would have been the nominee. Since they don't, he isn't.

__________________I think the young people enjoy it when I "get down," verbally, don't you?